As Jonathan Gray points out, "Given the powers that some ascribe to television ("television caused Columbine," "television won Bush the election," "television brightened her day," "television fried his brain," etc.), it would be morally and intellectually irresponsible of us not to spend considerable time, effort, and energy examining the intricacies of television."
I shall call this field of examination, TVology. It is kind of like theology, only the thing it examines exists outside of the minds of its practitioners ... and is all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, and all-loving.
* Gray, Jonathan. Television Entertainment. London: Routledge, 2008 pp.2-3
A blog confronting pseudohistory, pseudoscience, and other questionable pronouncements of fact
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
'ad hominem' is a logical fallacy, not a piece of decorative verbiage for everyday use
Several times I have encountered in non-academic discussions the faulty deployment of the philosophical term ad hominem. Usually it comes from people who have picked up the term from a piece of popular philosophy or science writing (like something by Richard Dawkins). Although an individual's own usage may be second hand and come from someone else's mistaken views. In any event, it seems ad hominem has become part of the fad to adorn ones speech and forum/blog posting with such language.
Having looked at the basic glossary meaning some think the term is synonymous with a phrase like 'personal attack'. This is wrong. Ad hominem is Latin for "against the man" and is used to denote a certain logical fallacy where one party attacks the other's character or aspects of their personal identity (work etc) rather than the arguments and evidence they have provided. This is an attempt to argue against the premises of an opponent's stance without countering the justifications that have been given for it. In effect, one party seeks to de-rail the debate and to win without countering any evidence or argument contrary to their own claims.
For the term to be applicable there needs to be something of a formal debate in which the aspects of those involved (personal background, position etc) are irrelevant to proceedings. Such a situation does not exist in everyday or informal situations. Only if the circumstances are met can an individual's statements be considered ad hominem; in most cases they are simply comments about an individual that may vary from legitimate points (if someone has a vested interest in the outcome of a decision, or has proven to be unreliably informed or ignorant on matters of relevance to the discussion) to personal attacks (arguing against someone's personality rather than their factual or evidentiary claims; i.e. "You are a dickhead so your arguments are invalid").
In sum, only use a philosophical term (or any other academic/specialist phrase for that matter) if you actually know when it is correct otherwise you may fall short of your attempt to look smart and appear quite the fool instead.
Having looked at the basic glossary meaning some think the term is synonymous with a phrase like 'personal attack'. This is wrong. Ad hominem is Latin for "against the man" and is used to denote a certain logical fallacy where one party attacks the other's character or aspects of their personal identity (work etc) rather than the arguments and evidence they have provided. This is an attempt to argue against the premises of an opponent's stance without countering the justifications that have been given for it. In effect, one party seeks to de-rail the debate and to win without countering any evidence or argument contrary to their own claims.
For the term to be applicable there needs to be something of a formal debate in which the aspects of those involved (personal background, position etc) are irrelevant to proceedings. Such a situation does not exist in everyday or informal situations. Only if the circumstances are met can an individual's statements be considered ad hominem; in most cases they are simply comments about an individual that may vary from legitimate points (if someone has a vested interest in the outcome of a decision, or has proven to be unreliably informed or ignorant on matters of relevance to the discussion) to personal attacks (arguing against someone's personality rather than their factual or evidentiary claims; i.e. "You are a dickhead so your arguments are invalid").
In sum, only use a philosophical term (or any other academic/specialist phrase for that matter) if you actually know when it is correct otherwise you may fall short of your attempt to look smart and appear quite the fool instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)